There’s a subtle difference here that I can’t quite put my finger on.
An article in The Register (by Lewis Page):
Agricultural brainboxes at Stanford University say that global warming isn’t likely to seriously affect poor people in developing nations, who make up so much of the human race. Under some scenarios, poor farmers “could be lifted out of poverty quite considerably,” according to new research.
The Stanford University report on which it was (purportedly) based:
The impact of global warming on food prices and hunger could be large over the next 20 years, according to a new Stanford University study. Researchers say that higher temperatures could significantly reduce yields of wheat, rice and maize – dietary staples for tens of millions of poor people who subsist on less than $1 a day. The resulting crop shortages would likely cause food prices to rise and drive many into poverty.
But even as some people are hurt, others would be helped out of poverty, says Stanford agricultural scientist David Lobell.
The Register’s article is a transparent and spectacular case of selective reading. The Stanford report briefly discusses a complex set of effects, some of which are actually positive. The rose-tinted spectacles at The Register apparently have a problem seeing the opening paragraph, and instead treat the report as though it were some sort of vindication of climate inaction.
Climate researchers really can’t win in the face of such wilful distortion. If their research shows that the effects are all negative, they are portrayed as “alarmists”. If their research shows some mitigating factors, then these will be trumpeted as proof that climate change is a “scare”.
The title and subtitle of The Register’s article hint at the underlying attitude:
Global warming worst case = Only slight misery increase
The peasants aren’t revolting – they’ve never had it so good
The world’s poor have “never had it so good”, eh? I’m glad to see such overflowing concern for the less fortunate.